Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The County of San Joaquin (County) petitioned for review of a Public Employment Relations Board (Board) decision in which the Board found the County interfered with and discriminated against the protected activity of the California Nurses Association (Nurses) and its registered nurse members (members). Specifically, the Board found the County’s policy prohibiting members from returning to work after a noticed strike based on the County’s contract with a strike replacement company containing a minimum shift guarantee for replacement workers was conduct inherently destructive to protected activity. The Board then announced and applied a new test providing for a defense to the County’s conduct of threatening and implementing the policy and determined the County could not meet the standard set forth in the test. The Board ordered several remedies, including that the County allow members to use accrued leave for the time they were prohibited from returning to work and for similar absences in the future. The Court of Appeal granted the County’s petition for writ of review relief, and issued the writ of review. After reviewing the County's challenges to several of the Board’s legal, factual, and remedial findings, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision in all respects. View "County of San Joaquin v. Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Appellant Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation (Murray) briefly employed Respondent as a journeyman pipefitter in 2019–2020. In 2020, Respondent sued for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), alleging Murray did not provide meal and rest breaks or accurate wage statements; pay all wages in a timely manner; or reimburse business expenses. The employment relationship was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent's union and Murray. The CBA requires arbitration of disputes—including ones arising under PAGA—as the sole and exclusive remedy. Murray moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court denied the motion.The right to file a PAGA action generally cannot be waived by contract. However, the Labor Code exempts construction workers from PAGA if a CBA covers wages, hours and working conditions and (1) has a grievance and arbitration procedure to redress Labor Code violations; (2) clearly waives PAGA; and (3) authorizes the arbitrator to award all remedies available under the Labor Code.Here, the Second Appellate District held that the parties’ CBA clearly waives PAGA and satisfies the requirements of section 2699.6, as a matter of law. Thus, the court determined that the parties' dispute is exempt from PAGA, reversing the trial court's order and remanding with instructions for the trial cour to grant Murray's motion to compel arbitration. View "Oswald v. Murray Plumbing & Heating Corp." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, firefighters with California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, for the last ten years of their careers served as executive officers for the union. During that time, the plaintiffs were on full-time leave from their firefighting positions but remained Cal Fire employees. Neither took any holidays off during their tenure as union officers. They believed their positions to be “365 days a year, 24 hours a day.” No one at Cal Fire expressed any concern that they were not using any holiday credits. Cal Fire “cashed out” their holiday leave credits by issuing checks, whether the plaintiffs wanted that or not. The cash-outs were not reported to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) as income to be included in pension calculations.After the plaintiffs. retired, the union asked CalPERS to include the amounts they received in the cash-outs when calculating their final compensation, part of the formula on which pension benefits are based. CalPERS concluded the buy-downs were not “compensation earnable” under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law. (Gov. Code 20630(b), 20636). An ALJ and CalPERS’s board agreed. The court of appeal reversed. The plaintiffs’ holiday cash-outs were special compensation and must be included in calculating their pensions. View "Hale v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System" on Justia Law

Manuel sued for wrongful termination after he was injured during the course of his employment with BrightView. The parties dispute whether Manuel’s employment was terminated in retaliation for his job injury or whether he failed to return to work due to federal immigration authorities questioning his eligibility to work in the United States. After Manuel objected to BrightView’s written discovery requests concerning his immigration status, BrightView obtained an order compelling Manuel to provide further responses to its discovery requests.The court of appeal vacated and directed the trial court to deny BrightView’s discovery motion. BrightView did not meet its burden, under Senate Bill No. 1818 (2002, codified, in part at Labor Code section 1171.5), to show that inquiry into his immigration status was necessary to comply with federal immigration law. Senate Bill 1818 declared that “[a]ll protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless of immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who have been employed, in this state." A former employee’s status as an unauthorized worker is not a complete defense to a claim of wrongful termination. BrightView may not propound discovery inquiring into Manuel’s immigration status absent any showing of clear and convincing evidence that Manuel is seeking remedies for wrongful termination in violation of federal immigration law. View "Manuel v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County" on Justia Law

Technology Credit Union (TCU) sought a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) (Code Civ. Proc., 527.81) restraining Rafat and protecting TCU’s employee, M.L., claiming that Rafat had made a credible threat of violence against M.L. M.L.’s declaration, described a single encounter between her and Rafat at TCU, during which Rafat “became visibly angry and became aggressive towards” her, made a video recording of her “without her consent,” “made several rude and inappropriate statements questioning [her] mental competency,” repeatedly refused her request to stop recording, and “forced a pen and paper back towards [her] and demanded that [she] write down his number.” M.L. believed that Rafat “will come back and seek [her] out” because Rafat “frequently visits” TCU. Rafat admitted that he made a video recording of the interaction, which he posted on his YouTube channel, but denied M.L.’s other claims and denied that he made a credible threat of violence.The court of appeal reversed the entry of a WVRO. The evidence is insufficient to show that Rafat made a credible threat of violence. Rafat’s conduct was rude, impatient, aggressive, and derogatory; he had a history of using aggressive language, including making offensive remarks. However, the only threats he made were litigation and complaints to a federal agency. His actions toward M.L. consisted of berating her, complaining to her supervisor, and posting an accurate video of their interaction on YouTube. View "Technology Credit Union v. Rafat" on Justia Law

Cisco Systems, Inc. hired “John Doe” in September 2015 to work as an engineer. Doe was required to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of his employment. Under the agreement, Cisco and Doe had to arbitrate “all disputes or claims arising from or relating to” Doe’s employment, including claims of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. Several years after signing the agreement, Doe filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging Cisco discriminated against him because of ancestry or race. He reported that two supervisors denied him opportunities and disparaged him because, under the traditional caste system of India, he was from the lowest caste and they are from the highest. Doe also accused Cisco of retaliating when he complained about being treated unfavorably because of his caste. The Department notified Cisco of Doe’s complaint, investigated it, and decided it had merit. Attempts at informal resolution were unsuccessful. The Department then filed a lawsuit against Cisco and the two supervisors. The Department alleged five causes of action alleging multiple violations of FEHA, and sought a permanent injunction preventing Cisco from committing further violations, and mandatory injunctive relief requiring Cisco to institute policies to prevent employment discrimination. The complaint also requested an order that Cisco compensate Doe for past and future economic losses. Cisco moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement Doe signed. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Cisco argued the Department was bound by the terms of Doe’s arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the Department acts independently when it exercises the power to sue for FEHA violations. “As an independent party, the Department cannot be compelled to arbitrate under an agreement it has not entered.” View "Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The San Diego City Attorney brought an enforcement action under the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. (UCL), on behalf of the State of California against Maplebear Inc. DBA Instacart (Instacart). In their complaint, the State alleged Instacart unlawfully misclassified its employees as independent contractors in order to deny workers employee protections, harming its alleged employees and the public at large through a loss of significant payroll tax revenue, and giving Instacart an unfair advantage against its competitors. In response to the complaint, Instacart brought a motion to compel arbitration of a portion of the City’s action based on its agreements with the individuals it hires ("Shoppers"). The trial court denied the motion, concluding Instacart failed to meet its burden to show a valid agreement to arbitrate between it and the State. Instacart challenged the trial court’s order, arguing that even though the State was not a party to its Shopper agreements, they were bound by its arbitration provision to the extent they seek injunctive relief and restitution because these remedies were “primarily for the benefit of” the Shoppers. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and affirmed the trial court’s order. View "California v. Maplebear Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her former employer, Wood Ranch USA, Inc. (Wood Ranch) for compensatory and punitive damages on nine different causes of action. Wood Ranch moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion and stayed the pending court proceedings. Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s prior order compelling arbitration. Invoking sections 1281.97 and 1281.99, Plaintiff argued that Wood Ranch’s late payment of its share of the initiation fees constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement.   The trial court granted the motion, and the Second Appellate District affirmed the court’s order vacating its earlier order compelling arbitration between the parties in this case. The appeal presents a question of first impression: Are these provisions preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)? The court held that they are not because the procedures they prescribe further—rather than frustrate—the objectives of the FAA to honor the parties’ intent to arbitrate and to preserve arbitration as a speedy and effective alternative forum for resolving disputes.   The court explained that Sections 1281.97 and 1281.99 undeniably single out arbitration insofar as they define procedures that apply only to arbitrated disputes. But that they are arbitration-specific is not sufficient to warrant preemption by the FAA. Further, these sections in this case do not interfere with the FAA’s first goal of honoring the parties’ intent. Moreover, applying these sections, in this case, does not interfere with the FAA’s second goal of safeguarding arbitration as an expedited and cost-efficient vehicle for resolving disputes. View "Gallo v. Wood Ranch USA, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether a cross-complaint filed by Connor Callanan against Charles Menken, Steven Menken, and Grizzly Designs, LLC, dba Brotherly Love (collectively “the Menkens”) was a SLAPP suit subject to a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (known as the anti-SLAPP statute). The Menkens were “engaged in the research and development of various cannabis based products intended for marketing in the burgeoning cannabis market space.” Marino and Callanan owned and operated a business called UHSE Media LLC that provided media, marketing, and consulting services to the cannabis industry. In May 2019, the Menkens entered into an “oral agreement” with Marino and Callanan for such consulting services and agreed to pay them $30,000 each. The Menkens claimed that Marino and Callanan were independent contractors rather than employees. Marino and Callanan were “permitted” to live at the Menkens’ “business location” “as they deemed necessary” in order to do their consulting work, but they “were at all times free to come and go as they determined necessary and for their own purposes.” They began living and working at the Menkens’ business location in late May 2019. The Menkens contended “the substantial majority” of the work Marino and Callanan did on the farm was related to their independent media and consulting business, but that by November 2019, Marino and Callanan were failing to perform media and consulting services and were instead spending most of their time harvesting and processing cannabis. Marino and Callanan also began demanding sums of money “they believed they were entitled to under California’s wage and hour laws.” At this point, the parties’ relationship “became openly hostile” and Marino and Callanan (allegedly) set fire to a building that was used as an office and sleeping quarters, causing over $100,000 in damages. The Menkens contended Callanan’s cross-complaint was a SLAPP suit because it was filed in retaliation for a cross-complaint they filed against Callanan, and they filed a motion under section 425.16 seeking to strike it. The trial court granted the motion, and Callanan appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Callanan’s cross-complaint was not a SLAPP suit because none of his claims arose from the filing of the Menkens’ cross-complaint. View "Callanan v. Grizzly Designs, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Court of Appeal's review in this case centered on whether California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.4 authorized the trial court to stay a plaintiff’s action on the basis of a pending arbitration to which the plaintiff was not a party. Ann Leenay brought an action against her former employer, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (Lowe’s), under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The trial court granted a petition to coordinate her action with a number of other PAGA actions against Lowe’s. Lowe’s then moved to stay the coordinated actions under section 1281.4. Lowe’s based the motion on over 50 arbitration proceedings against it, but Leenay and the other plaintiffs in the coordinated actions were not parties in any of those arbitration proceedings. The trial court granted the motion to stay, and Leenay filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the Court of Appeal to vacate the order. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred by granting the motion to stay. "[S]ection 1281.4 applies only when a court has ordered parties to arbitration, the arbitrable issue arises in the pending court action, and the parties in the arbitration are also parties to the court action. Under those circumstances, the court must stay the action (or enter a stay with respect to the arbitrable issue, if the issue is severable)." Those circumstances did not exist in this case. The Court therefore granted Leenay’s writ petition. View "Leenay v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law